UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SILVINO LARA-LARA, a/k/a Angel Lara, a/k/a Chapparro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00274-D-3)
Submitted: April 24, 2015 Decided: May 15, 2015
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynne L. Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Silvino Lara-Lara pled guilty without a plea agreement to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5
kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012) (Count 1);
aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2012), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012) (Counts 4 and 5); aiding
and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) (Count 8); and eluding examination and
inspection by immigration officers, 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) (2012)
(Count 11). Lara-Lara was sentenced within the Guidelines range
to 132 months in prison. In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lara-Lara’s attorney has filed
a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but questioning whether Lara-Lara’s plea was voluntary
because Lara-Lara was induced to enter a plea based on a promise
by counsel that he would receive an 87-month sentence. Lara-
Lara has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that trial
counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
First, because Lara-Lara did not move to withdraw his plea,
we review his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
“[T]o satisfy the plain error standard, [an appellant] must
show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the
2
error affects substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg,
564 F.3d 337, 342–43 (4th Cir. 2009). Even if Lara-Lara
satisfies these requirements, correction of the error lies
within our discretion, if we conclude that the error “seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and have
found no plain error.
Where, as here, the district court complies with Rule 11
when accepting a defendant’s plea, we attach a strong
presumption that the plea is knowing and voluntary, and,
consequently, final and binding. United States v. Lambey, 974
F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Furthermore, Lara-
Lara’s assertions of inducement and misrepresentation are
directly contradicted by his sworn statements before the
district court during his Rule 11 hearing. These averments
carry a strong presumption of validity, and Lara-Lara has failed
to offer a credible basis on which to doubt their veracity.
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977); Fields v.
Attorney Gen., 956 F.2d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1992).
We decline to reach Lara-Lara’s claim that his trial
counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance.
Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the
face of the record, ineffective assistance claims are not
3
generally addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton,
523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should
be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the record.
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir.
2010). Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective
assistance of counsel on the face of the record, we conclude
that these claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255
motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Lara-Lara’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Lara-Lara, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Lara-Lara requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Lara-Lara. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4